Can we talk about Speak with Plants?

[HappyDaze]

The statblocks do nothing to help me, because I am the one that decides what the statblocks even are.

So why even have a Monster Manual?

[DrKerosene]

So why even have a Monster Manual?

As a source of benchmarks (such as most plant monsters have blindsight, most undead and outsiders are immune to poison, most creatures over CR6 has some resistances and/or immunities, etc), and a bunch of abilities to apply to your freaky creations (a water elemental in the sewers might be slightly more poisonous or disease ridden than a normal water elemental).

[HappyDaze]

As a source of benchmarks (such as most plant monsters have blindsight, most undead and outsiders are immune to poison, most creatures over CR6 has some resistances and/or immunities, etc), and a bunch of abilities to apply to your freaky creations (a water elemental in the sewers might be slightly more poisonous or disease ridden than a normal water elemental).

But if you're of the mind that DMs should just make up whatever strikes their fancy for their narrative, like the one I replied to, then why bother at all?

[Keltest]

But if you're of the mind that DMs should just make up whatever strikes their fancy for their narrative, like the one I replied to, then why bother at all?

Convenience. Making up the stat block of, say, a sewer slime is time and energy consuming. Having a book full of premade creatures saves both. Beyond which, a combat encounter is different than a social encounter. There are no stat blocks telling you how many dock workers saw our thief, or what details they saw or remembered. Making those details is literally your job as DM.

[Chronos]

Yes, the DM can unilaterally decide anything. But too much of that, and it stops being a game, and starts being just storytime, where everyone sits around and listens to the DM reading them his bad Lord of the Rings fanfiction. That might be fun for the DM, but it usually isn't for anyone else. What's most fun is for the players to have a problem to solve, and tools at their disposal to solve it, and have to figure out on their own how to use those tools. And it's a complicated enough game that the DM might not have even anticipated the solution they find. But for that to work, everyone has to have an idea of what those tools can do, which means that if you can talk to plants, you have to have some idea of how much plants can know.

[Keltest]

Yes, the DM can unilaterally decide anything. But too much of that, and it stops being a game, and starts being just storytime, where everyone sits around and listens to the DM reading them his bad Lord of the Rings fanfiction. That might be fun for the DM, but it usually isn't for anyone else. What's most fun is for the players to have a problem to solve, and tools at their disposal to solve it, and have to figure out on their own how to use those tools. And it's a complicated enough game that the DM might not have even anticipated the solution they find. But for that to work, everyone has to have an idea of what those tools can do, which means that if you can talk to plants, you have to have some idea of how much plants can know.

The same as any other NPC: it depends on context and what the DM wants. Plants aren't special about that, the same thing applies to everything that can communicate.

[Chaosmancer]

So why even have a Monster Manual?

Stats for fighting. For going against the players.

Not for telling me how much information to give them about the plot.

Yes, the DM can unilaterally decide anything. But too much of that, and it stops being a game, and starts being just storytime, where everyone sits around and listens to the DM reading them his bad Lord of the Rings fanfiction. That might be fun for the DM, but it usually isn't for anyone else. What's most fun is for the players to have a problem to solve, and tools at their disposal to solve it, and have to figure out on their own how to use those tools. And it's a complicated enough game that the DM might not have even anticipated the solution they find. But for that to work, everyone has to have an idea of what those tools can do, which means that if you can talk to plants, you have to have some idea of how much plants can know.

Okay. Open up the Dungeon Master's Guide. Read to me the plot of the Wererats in the sewers of Silverymoon. Or you can tell me what the plot of The Green Dragon of the Mountains of Despair is?

No, you can't. Because as the DM I have to make that up.

So, when you are gathering clues about those wererats or that dragon, I as the DM have to decide what exists, who saw it, and how the players learn it. So, if someone casts speak with plants near a sewer entrance, that is a great time to give a clue, I probably was hinting at something anyways that got them to cast the spell.

I don't understand why I need to know they have a passive perception of 10 to do that, when I never do that for any other NPC

[Bardon]

As JellyPooga said, as the DM, I control all the factors. If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were.

The theif rolled a nat 1 on their stealth. Or the dockworker saw a shadow run past after some dogs started barking. People aren't blind at night (the nightsky I assume counts as dim light) so even darkvision isn't a big deal unless it was a moonless night. And even that is information that I determine as the DM.

The statblocks do nothing to help me, because I am the one that decides what the statblocks even are.

When you state "If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were" you immediately change from playing a game with others to them acting out your movie, with you as director.

If the thief player rolls nat20 and you have the worker notice him because that suits you, you remove all ability of the players to affect the outcome.

I'd quit that game on the spot.

[JellyPooga]

When you state "If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were" you immediately change from playing a game with others to them acting out your movie, with you as director.

If the thief player rolls nat20 and you have the worker notice him because that suits you, you remove all ability of the players to affect the outcome.

I'd quit that game on the spot.

We're not talking about an encounter a player character is in, though, are we? We're talking about setting information, we're talking about plot. If the plot calls for the thief to be seen by a dockworker, then the stats of the thief are entirely as irrelevant as those of the dockworker and there are certainly not going to be any dice rolled. It's setting the parameters of the scenario for the players to discover and interact with NPCs based on it. That's not "storytime GMing"...that's just GMing.

[Azuresun]

When you state "If I want the worker to have seen the thief, then it doesn't matter what anyone's stats were" you immediately change from playing a game with others to them acting out your movie, with you as director.

If the thief player rolls nat20 and you have the worker notice him because that suits you, you remove all ability of the players to affect the outcome.

I'd quit that game on the spot.

Now I have the image in my mind of the PC's undertaking a quest to find the Loremaster of Sunspire Keep, the only one who can tell them the secret weakness of the demon lord Ash'boreth in time for them to save the world....

.....and then the Loremaster rolls a 1 on the Arcana check the DM decided to have him make, so the legendary sage just shrugs and goes "Dunno, mate.". Epic quest doesn't happen, the PC's world gets blown up.

[Bardon]

We're not talking about an encounter a player character is in, though, are we? We're talking about setting information, we're talking about plot. If the plot calls for the thief to be seen by a dockworker, then the stats of the thief are entirely as irrelevant as those of the dockworker and there are certainly not going to be any dice rolled. It's setting the parameters of the scenario for the players to discover and interact with NPCs based on it. That's not "storytime GMing"...that's just GMing.

Ahh. Okay, it looks like I misunderstood the scenario. Mea culpa!

As long as you're not railroading the party, fair enough. Plot should never take precedence over PC choice, and if the GM arranges things so that the players only really have one way to go/deal with an issue, that's a problem.

[JellyPooga]

Ahh. Okay, it looks like I misunderstood the scenario. Mea culpa!

As long as you're not railroading the party, fair enough. Plot should never take precedence over PC choice, and if the GM arranges things so that the players only really have one way to go/deal with an issue, that's a problem.

Indeed. In the context of Speak with Plants, the same applies; it doesn't matter if "average" plants have normal human vision, blindsight or tremorsense any more than if they have passive perception 10 or effective strength 12...what matters is whether the GM decides that those plants were in a position for the PCs to learn something useful if/when they cast Speak with Plants. There are enough plant creatures in the MM to get a decent enough idea of what stats might apply to a specific scenario without outlining it in the spell description.

[Chronos]

Quoth Chaosmancer:

Okay. Open up the Dungeon Master's Guide. Read to me the plot of the Wererats in the sewers of Silverymoon. Or you can tell me what the plot of The Green Dragon of the Mountains of Despair is?

No, you can't. Because as the DM I have to make that up.

Yup, the DM has to decide the motivations for every NPC, either planning it out in advance or on the fly as it comes up. The motivation for this oak tree is that it wants to grow enough taller than the building next to it so it can catch the best sunlight, and it wants to spread its acorns as far as it can. Done. Now tell me where it says how much the oak tree is able to know about who or what passes by it. As you say, the plants affected by this spell aren't special, any more than any other NPCs. And all other NPCs have information on what they can sense, so why should plants be any different?

And yes, when I'm running an adventure, there are some NPCs who I specifically plan out what they know, and what they'll tell the PCs under what circumstances. If the players go the most obvious routes in their information-gathering, then I have answers ready to go for them. But they could come up with something else, and pursue unexpected avenues of investigation, and talk to NPCs I haven't planned out. And a plant is almost certainly one of those unplanned NPCs. They're exactly the ones whose stats I need the most.

It's no answer at all to just say "They'll find out what the DM wants them to find out". What I want my players to find out is everything. I put a lot of work into creating all of this detail, and I don't want it to go to waste. Does that mean that I start the adventure by having someone walk into the tavern and detail the villain's entire plot? Of course not. They have to figure it out on their own, because that's how games work. And that means knowing who to ask what, which means knowing who is even capable of knowing what.

[JellyPooga]

Yup, the DM has to decide the motivations for every NPC, either planning it out in advance or on the fly as it comes up. The motivation for this oak tree is that it wants to grow enough taller than the building next to it so it can catch the best sunlight, and it wants to spread its acorns as far as it can. Done. Now tell me where it says how much the oak tree is able to know about who or what passes by it. As you say, the plants affected by this spell aren't special, any more than any other NPCs. And all other NPCs have information on what they can sense, so why should plants be any different?

What senses do Humanoids have?

Do they have darkvision? Some do. Some don't.
Can they see invisible? It's possible.
What is the perception modifier for a humanoid? Depends on the character in question.

The question is nonsense and as valid as the question of what senses plants have. Not all plants are the same or have the same capabilities as other plants. There are multiple plant creatures in the MM, displaying a variety of senses and abilities in the exact same manner that there are examples of humanoids. If you want or need stats, they exist.

[Derpy]

I've been reading this thread since it's been up, it's been an interesting read. I have a few thoughts on it.

First off, everything in the game is open to DM interpretation, and how they want the world to be. If a DM's players enjoy that world and game then something is being done right. If I spend a third level spell slot that explicitly grants me information and the DM pulls a gotcha moment I, personally, would not have fun with that. Almost every player I play with would not have fun with that. Depending on the personal interaction regarding that, things like forgiving the spell slot because it didn't do as written in the PHB, or covering that the DM changed what the spell could do in session zero would mitigate those feelings, which brings me to point two.

RAW, the spell says what it can do in regards to information gathering;

You can question plants about events in the spell’s area within the past day, gaining information about creatures that have passed, weather, and other circumstances.

Emphasis mine. RAW says you can gain information, specifically about creatures that have passed. If the DM want's to say, "a few medium creatures passed this way", that's fine. It's information. If they want to say, "two humans in plate with an orc in hide and a dwarf in chain passed this way in the morning," that's fine too. It's information. If they want to say, "A tree chopper, who was wearing the bark of malleable metal, with a hunter with the skin of a grass eater upon it, and two shiny statues trod upon the path when the warmth chased away the dark," that's fine too. It's information. As a DM this is their choice to make, but claiming it's too hard to make because there is no stat block is a disservice to a player who cast the spell, with an honest and justified expectation it would do what it said in the book. If someone uses the spell to gain that information and the DM wants to houserule the information isn't granted, because trees and plants don't have senses, that's fine, it's their game. But it's not RAW.

RAI, I, personally, would at least the give the spell the same knowledge that could be granted by a high survival skill check, not in tracks and such, but in who passed by; how long ago, weather in the past day, or anything else pertinent to that type of information gathering. A third level spell slot isn't exactly cheep to spend in most campaigns on the information that could be gathered, potentially by a character who might not shine in more urban situations and now has an opportunity to help the party. Throwing that away because the book doesn't detail to me the specifics and hold my hand seems a waste of opportunity and player/character potential. Plus, me and my players could probably have a bit of fun giving personality to plants and interacting with that, though I can see why some games would want a quick, 'this, that, and the other passed this way within the past 24 hours.'

[Chaosmancer]

Yup, the DM has to decide the motivations for every NPC, either planning it out in advance or on the fly as it comes up. The motivation for this oak tree is that it wants to grow enough taller than the building next to it so it can catch the best sunlight, and it wants to spread its acorns as far as it can. Done. Now tell me where it says how much the oak tree is able to know about who or what passes by it. As you say, the plants affected by this spell aren't special, any more than any other NPCs. And all other NPCs have information on what they can sense, so why should plants be any different?

And yes, when I'm running an adventure, there are some NPCs who I specifically plan out what they know, and what they'll tell the PCs under what circumstances. If the players go the most obvious routes in their information-gathering, then I have answers ready to go for them. But they could come up with something else, and pursue unexpected avenues of investigation, and talk to NPCs I haven't planned out. And a plant is almost certainly one of those unplanned NPCs. They're exactly the ones whose stats I need the most.

It's no answer at all to just say "They'll find out what the DM wants them to find out". What I want my players to find out is everything. I put a lot of work into creating all of this detail, and I don't want it to go to waste. Does that mean that I start the adventure by having someone walk into the tavern and detail the villain's entire plot? Of course not. They have to figure it out on their own, because that's how games work. And that means knowing who to ask what, which means knowing who is even capable of knowing what.

There are no stats for mice, the closest you could get is a Rat. Do Mice have the same wisdom as a rat?

There are no stats for squirrels either. Sparrows. Bluebirds. Moles.

All of these are animals that players might need to use Speak with Animals on.

Ah, but you know how animals work right? You can intuit what they can sense because they have eyes and ears. You can't do that with plants.

And we showed, that many plants have Blindsight. That is as close as you can get to a natural plant with no magic, is looking at the plants like the Assassin Vine or the Tri-Color Flower and working from there.

But you don't need stats. Once you have that they have blindsense 30 to 60 ft, then you can do everything you need to do.

[JackPhoenix]

But you don't need stats. Once you have that they have blindsense 30 to 60 ft, then you can do everything you need to do.

Except you can't, because blindsight still doesn't tell you how it works and what information you can get with it. Yes, yes, "you can perceive your surroundings without relying on sight".... but a blind human can do that without any special sense. Hearing, touch, scent and taste allow you to do that too, each will give you different information, and at least we know how it works. Hell, tremorsense is more useful in telling you what information it can provide.

[HappyDaze]

Once you have that they have blindsense 30 to 60 ft, then you can do everything you need to do.

Plant-type creatures may have blindsense, but non-creature plants are objects. If you use animated objects as a guide, they too have blindsight...except they didn't have it until the spell is cast. If I animate a bed and ask it about the last 24 hours, its blindsight doesn't let it somehow tell me about who was shagging in it last night. The same goes for plants in my view.

[HPisBS]

Plant-type creatures may have blindsense, but non-creature plants are objects. If you use animated objects as a guide, they too have blindsight...except they didn't have it until the spell is cast. If I animate a bed and ask it about the last 24 hours, its blindsight doesn't let it somehow tell me about who was shagging in it last night. The same goes for plants in my view.

Except, unlike Speak With Plants, Animate Objects doesn't say you can get that info.

[HappyDaze]

Except, unlike Speak With Plants, Animate Objects doesn't say you can get that info.

And, unlike animate objects, speak with plants doesn't say that the targets of the spell get blindsight.

[HPisBS]

And, unlike animate objects, speak with plants doesn't say that the targets of the spell get blindsight.

Uh-huhhhh...

Still waiting for how leaving it to the DM to determine the specific mechanisms by which the spell does what the spell says it does (if the DM even cares) is supposed to prevent the spell from actually doing what the spell plainly says it does.

[Chaosmancer]

Except you can't, because blindsight still doesn't tell you how it works and what information you can get with it. Yes, yes, "you can perceive your surroundings without relying on sight".... but a blind human can do that without any special sense. Hearing, touch, scent and taste allow you to do that too, each will give you different information, and at least we know how it works. Hell, tremorsense is more useful in telling you what information it can provide.

Then how do you determine what an Adult Ooblex (an intelligent slime) can tell the party?

A dragon has blindsense, if they used it, what could they tell the party?

A balhannoth has blindsense and can communicate, what about them?

Snakes?

Creatures with Blindsense and the ability to communicate with the party have existed this entire time. Why is this suddenly different?

Plant-type creatures may have blindsense, but non-creature plants are objects. If you use animated objects as a guide, they too have blindsight...except they didn't have it until the spell is cast. If I animate a bed and ask it about the last 24 hours, its blindsight doesn't let it somehow tell me about who was shagging in it last night. The same goes for plants in my view.

Your view completely ignores the RAW of the spell. Which states that the plants affected by the spell can communicate to the party what has happened over the last 24 hours. If two people were shagging on a bed of moss, and you animate that moss a few hours later, it by RAW can tell you that two people were shagging on it.

And, unlike animate objects, speak with plants doesn't say that the targets of the spell get blindsight.

Then don't give them blindisght.

In fact, why don't you just wait until someone casts the spell to gather information and then tell them that the plants don't respond because they can't hear you talking, because they are deaf, mute and dumb.

I'm sure the party will be thrilled that their attempt to learn information was declared null and void because the spell isn't allowed to do what the spell says it can do.

Which is talk to plants, and learn what happened in that area over the last 24 hours.

Edit: I'm getting frustrated with this, because it seems like an excuse to me. "I'm sorry Druid, I know you thought talking to the Ivy outside the princesses window where she was kidnapped might give you clues, but plants aren't like animals. They just don't have senses to know what happens. And yes, she did have a pet parrot,but animals are stupid, so when you use speak with animals it can only tell you it like bird seed and thinks you are shiny."

Just let players use their spells to learn information. It isn't this difficult.

[Deathtongue]

Wait, why are plants objects in 5E D&D? That sounds like people projecting their unscientific, chauvinistic biases yet again -- like the idea that you need eyes to see, rather than the ability to distinguish direction and/or wavelength of light.

[Chaosmancer]

Wait, why are plants objects in 5E D&D? That sounds like people projecting their unscientific, chauvinistic biases yet again -- like the idea that you need eyes to see, rather than the ability to distinguish direction and/or wavelength of light.

I assume it is because they do not normally have an hp value, since "creature" is generally anything with stats.

[Delicious Taffy]

It isn't this difficult.

It's really not, but people insist on making it difficult. The game is like 50% imagination, but somehow people are physically incapable of imagining this one specific idea. The plants aren't real, they don't have to adhere to your strict, unyielding concept of what real-life plants can or can't do.

If you don't want your players casting a PRETEND MAGICAL SPELL to make pretend plants talk because "Plants aren't sentient in real life" then just don't let them take this one particular spell that bends your mind like a Lovecraftian horror. Not everything has to be explicitly stated, spelled out, and covered in precise mathematics for people to comprehend it.

[Chronos]

Quoth JellyPooga:

What senses do Humanoids have?

Do they have darkvision? Some do. Some don't.
Can they see invisible? It's possible.
What is the perception modifier for a humanoid? Depends on the character in question.

The question is nonsense and as valid as the question of what senses plants have. Not all plants are the same or have the same capabilities as other plants. There are multiple plant creatures in the MM, displaying a variety of senses and abilities in the exact same manner that there are examples of humanoids. If you want or need stats, they exist.

If the players question a human, I can look up humans and see, nope, no darkvision. If the players question an elf, I can look up elves and see, yup, darkvision. If the players question a patch of grass, I can look up shambling mounds, and see... wait, why am I looking up shambling mounds here?

Quoth Derpy:

Emphasis mine. RAW says you can gain information, specifically about creatures that have passed. If the DM want's to say, "a few medium creatures passed this way", that's fine. It's information. If they want to say, "two humans in plate with an orc in hide and a dwarf in chain passed this way in the morning," that's fine too. It's information. If they want to say, "A tree chopper, who was wearing the bark of malleable metal, with a hunter with the skin of a grass eater upon it, and two shiny statues trod upon the path when the warmth chased away the dark," that's fine too. It's information.

Or maybe just "A bunch of really heavy things trampled all over me"? That is, just as the spell says, providing information about creatures that passed. The spell works. But if that's the limits of what the spell does, it's not very useful.

[Keltest]

If the players question a human, I can look up humans and see, nope, no darkvision. If the players question an elf, I can look up elves and see, yup, darkvision. If the players question a patch of grass, I can look up shambling mounds, and see... wait, why am I looking up shambling mounds here?


Or maybe just "A bunch of really heavy things trampled all over me"? That is, just as the spell says, providing information about creatures that passed. The spell works. But if that's the limits of what the spell does, it's not very useful.

Im going to be a radical here and suggest that if your interpretation of the spell results in it being considerably less useful than it should otherwise be, the problem is your interpretation, not the spell. Past a point, you really need to ask yourself "is my reading allowing the spell to accomplish what it is intended for?" In this case, any interpretation that prevents the players from actually getting any meaningful information from the plants is stopping the spell from performing its basic function, and should probably be reconsidered.

[Derpy]

Or maybe just "A bunch of really heavy things trampled all over me"? That is, just as the spell says, providing information about creatures that passed. The spell works. But if that's the limits of what the spell does, it's not very useful.

If you want to be an antagonistic and combative DM, sure. But just like other senses, nothing says that tree roots are the sole way, let alone a way at all, that trees can sense something in the books. They don't have nerves the rest of the tree doesn't. That's 100% on you. If you feel that's worth a third level spell slot, I hope your players have fun with that ruling.

[HappyDaze]

I see the term "antagonist DM/GM" being thrown around a lot. Let's be honest, there are far more antagonistic players out there that take advantage of the power imbalance to play the victim card even when bullying the DM/GM. They abuse the term antagonistic until it's almost meaningless (i.e., it's whatever doesnt favor the player's wants) and becomes the equivalent of throwing out loaded terms like racist, misogynistic, or fascist. So, stop doing that.

[JellyPooga]

If the players question a human, I can look up humans and see, nope, no darkvision. If the players question an elf, I can look up elves and see, yup, darkvision. If the players question a patch of grass, I can look up shambling mounds, and see... wait, why am I looking up shambling mounds here?

What about a human that has cast a Darkvision spell? What about a blind elf? The statblocks you're using are irrelevant in such cases. How many HP does an Orc have? The correct answer is "however many the GM wants/needs", not the 15 listed on their statblock in the MM. In the end, you can only use the MM as a guideline for any NPC. Given that plant creatures in the MM have a strong tendency towards having Blindsight, it would be a safe assumption to make if you were to attribute it to plants under the effect of Speak with Plants, but you are under no obligation to.

Do you really expect the MM or the spell to list the differences between a mangrove, a cactus and an oak tree? How about a water lily? A potted ficus? What about the difference between bull-rushes, crab-grass and moss? Does fungus count? What if it's a gargantuan puffball? What about the difference between an ancient, centuries old oak and a young willow sapling? Each of these have their own physical characteristics that separate them from other types of plant. Each could have different senses, perception, even personalities and I would hate to have to ignore all those possibilities because a spell says that all non-creature plants, regardless of type, will always have normal human vision out ot 60ft or whatever. The designers hardly had the space in the spells chapter to outline every different type of possible plant that the spell could affect, even if they thought it was worth bothering, because at the end of the day; it's one spell that's not going to be commonly used, that has limited function in combat and is about talking to plants in the same way that you might talk to any other damned NPC, both categories (plants and NPCs) of which are as varied as there are colours under the sun. Even the Awaken spell says "eh, let the GM decide the stats" because the devs acknowledged the fact that different plants would have different stats under magical influence that gratns them sentience and animation. Yeah, there's stats for an awakened shrub in the MM, but it's a guideline, not a rule.